OBAMA MAKES INACCURATE COMMENT: ISRAELIS DON’T SUPPORT ME “BECAUSE MY NAME IS HUSSEIN” & MY “REACHING OUT TO MUSLIMS”
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized President Barack Obama for inaccurate remarks he made in his first interview with the Israeli media since campaigning for the presidency in July 2008, when he stated that Israelis do not support him “because my middle name is Hussein” and because “I have actively reached out” to Muslims. President Obama refused to acknowledge that his policies, hostile to Israel, are the reason for his unpopularity in Israel. In his interview on Israel TV, when asked by interviewer Yonit Levi about the anxiety about his policies among the Israeli public, President Obama said, “I think what this arises from -- some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion. Some of it may have to do with the fact that I have actively reached out to the Muslim community, and I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy” (‘Interview of the President by Yonit Levi, Israeli TV,’ July 8, 2010).
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “This is a clear failure of the president seeking fanciful explanations for problems when the answer is staring him in the mirror: Israelis distrust Obama, not because of his middle name and Muslim origins or outreach, but because he has proved in office to be a deeply hostile, unsympathetic president. Israelis have not formed their view of President Obama on the basis of his ethnicity or religious origin, but on the basis of facts and developments on Obama’s watch.
“The record shows that Israelis – like American Jews, who voted 78% for Obama – did not initially dislike or suspect Obama of hostility to Israel (though Obama’s record of associations with an anti-Israel pastor and church as well as anti-Israel activists and academics would have given them good grounds for unease).
“As recently as May 2009, 31% of Israelis were found to regard Obama as pro-Israel, as opposed to merely 14% who regarded him as pro-Palestinian and 40% who regarded it as neutral. However, by the end of June 2009, Obama’s popularity had fallen to 6%, while 50% of Israelis regarded him as pro-Palestinian. By August 2009, Obama’s popularity had eroded further to an unprecedented 4%.
“There is no mystery why this happened. In Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech, the right of Jews to their own country in their biblical, religious and legal homeland was written off as a consolation prize for the Holocaust; Palestinian suffering was compared to Jewish suffering under Nazism; and Muslims were lauded in all sorts of inaccurate ways. This deeply concerned Israelis. So too has Obama’s continuing focus on and opposition to Jews moving to and building in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem; his manufacturing a crisis over Israel merely announcing a building project in a Jewish neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem in which his Administration ‘condemned’ Israel, and called its action an ‘insult’ and an ‘affront’; Obama’s telling TIME magazine that Israel has made no serious concessions, despite it agreeing to a 10 month freeze on Jewish construction; his ignoring of Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder while increasing aid to the PA to $900 million, then adding another $400 million last month; his support for the Arab so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative,’ which demands Israel’s return to the pre-1967 borders, give up half of Jerusalem and permit Arab refugees and their millions of descendants to move to Israel; and his insistence of creating what will be another Arab terror state on the pre-1967 borders.
“Obama’s hostile policies and statements towards Israel account for his unpopularity in Israel, not his Muslim middle name of Hussein. This is an especially absurd Obama allegation, given that Israelis had affection for Jordan’s King Hussein. Obama’s allegation even falsely implies that Israelis show bigotry towards Muslims. In fact, the only concern Israelis have with Muslims is not about the fact that they are Muslims, but because of their actions and attitudes towards Israel.”
_______________
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-meets-netanyahu-no-love-fest-but.html
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Obama Meets Netanyahu: No Love Fest But As Good As It's Gonna Get
By Barry Rubin
Why was the meeting this time between President Barack H. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a success? The answer is simple though not all the reasons are publicly known. So I'll tell you about them.
The president couldn't have been more effusive. They had an "excellent" discussion, Netanyahu's statement was "wonderful," and the U.S.-Israel relationship is "extraordinary." Hard to believe this is the Obama we've seen before.
Obama wants to improve relations with Israel for several reasons. Obviously, he doesn't want to be bashing Israel in the period leading up to the November elections. Polls show that for Americans his administration’s relative hostility toward Israel is its least popular policy. But there is more to this trend than just that point.
What Obama wants is to be able to claim a diplomatic success in advancing the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” perhaps the only international issue he can so spin. Keeping indirect talks going and, even better, moving them up to direct talks is his goal. So he wants Netanyahu’s cooperation for that.
The same point holds regarding the Gaza Strip, where Obama wants to claim he has defused a crisis he has called “unsustainable.”
(I hate that word. When you hear something is “unsustainable” immediately become suspicious. This has everything to do with perceptions and little to do with realities where quite a lot of things are quite sustainable. Pretty much every single Middle East problem has been sustained for decades.)
And he also wants to keep the Israel-Arab front calm while he deals with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, seeking above all to avoid crises and confrontations and to keep up his (bogus) bargain of trading flattery for popularity.
So here’s the deal. Give Israel some U.S. support in exchange for modest steps that the administration hopes accomplishes its goals. Israel will give some things that don't appreciably hurt its interests in order to maintain good relations with the United States.
First, Israel has revised the list of goods it permits to go into the Gaza Strip. The details were all agreed beforehand with the United States. The Obama Administration will support Israel over Gaza generally, including endorsing its independent investigation of the flotilla issue.
As the Israeli government explained it, the new list "is limited to weapons, war materiel, and dual-use items." Such military items include--aside from the obvious--a long list of chemicals, fertilizers, knives, optical equipment, light control equipment, missile-related computer technologies, and so on.
Israel is defining dual-use items by an international agreement, the "Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies," and thus this should be acceptable to Western governments.
Construction material will be carefully monitored and allowed in only for specified projects. Israel will keep out dual-use goods including construction materials (concrete and pipes, for example) that can be used by Hamas to build bunkers and rockets.
At present, there are 45 such projects approved by Israel. The Palestinian Authority must also approve each one (thus, in theory, the buildings created would strengthen its popularity and influence though this is probably wishful thinking). These include school and medical buildings, water and sewage systems, and housing. If Israel determines through its multiple intelligence-collecting sources, that the material is being misused to benefit Hamas or its military strength, the supplies would be stopped.
The United States will proclaim that the alleged humanitarian crisis is over and the people of Gaza are doing just fine, ignoring their being subject to a terribly repressive dictatorship. Hamas will denounce the concessions as insufficient and continue efforts to smuggle in weapons, consolidate its rule, and turn Gaza's little children into terrorists. This is the contemporary Western idea of a diplomatic success.
(Here's a riddle for you. What's the difference between the Islamist and Western views of peace? The Islamists never lose a war because no matter how badly they are defeated they deem it a victory to survive and continue the battle. The West never loses a war because it defines the end of any war as victory no matter what the result.)
But Israel's policy decision makes sense. As I’ve pointed out before, once Israel concluded that there will be no Western commitment for overthrowing the Hamas regime it might as well go to a containment strategy. This Western policy is terrible but Israel is merely recognizing the real situation and making the best of it.
What a terrible strategy, though. Obama said:
"And we believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas."
Really? How the hell are you going to do that? Read the latest speech by Hamas's leader and wonder what possible conception of Hamas Obama might have. Doesn't he realize that if Gaza prospers Hamas is strongly entrenched in power and has plenty of assets to pursue war with Israel, which then destroys any prosperity.
Oh, I'm just being coy. I know what Obama thinks: The people prosper, the middle class gets stronger, the masses demand moderation and Hamas's downfall. This is a view of revolutionary Islamism and the workings of dictatorships that boggles the mind. It is the mindless idea that prosperity brings peace and moderation, and that a regime ready to torture, murder, and indoctrinate people will be easily removed.
There is the possibility of the U.S. government and other Western countries subverting Israel's position by engaging Hamas (as Russia did lately) but that line can probably be held for the next few years at least. Various Western media and activist groups can try to keep up the notion that the Gaza Strip is a hell on earth (because of Israel) and people are starving. There will be no truth to this, of course, but there was no truth to it before and that didn't stop them. But their task will be harder.
Obama praised Netanyahu just as much on the "peace process." The president said: "I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace." Remember that quote when Obama turns on Netanyahu again after the November elections. As for risks, we've had enough of those, thank you very much.
But Netanyahu's goal was to make Obama happy with the minimum of risk. Israel will extend its building freeze on the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for an Obama Administration commitment to endorse its predecessor’s acceptance of Israel retaining “settlement blocs” as part of any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
In other words, if a diplomatic settlement were ever to be reached then borders would be shifted to allow Israel to annex some relatively small areas with a large number of settlers. This would not only improve Israel’s security situation in the event of a peace agreement (don’t hold your breath for that to happen) but also greatly increase support for a flexible policy within Israel. If there isn't going to be a peace treaty (due to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas) Israel isn't giving up anything.
Continuing to freeze construction on settlements will give Netanyahu a domestic problem but he can hold his coalition together, if necessary by adjusting it. Parties are constrained from walking out of the government because if elections were to be held Netanyahu would win in a landslide partly at their expense.
Another thing Netanyahu wants is for Obama to escalate pressure on Iran regarding that country’s nuclear weapons’ drive. The new sanctions, thanks to Congress, are going to hurt Iran and undermine support for the regime there. Not enough, of course, to stop the program. Still, when Iran does get nuclear weapons, Israel will need the United States to take a strong stand in containing Tehran.
Does Israel’s government trust Obama? Of course not. Israel’s government and Israelis in general are under no illusions about Obama’s view of their country, his willingness to battle revolutionary Islamists, or his general reliability and toughness.
For example, last October the Obama Administration, through the State Department, did endorse the “settlement bloc” commitment, but then appeared to have forgotten about it. The U.S. government also broke its promises over the settlement freeze (accepting Jerusalem’s exclusion and then howling about it a few months later) and regarding the nonproliferation conference (pledging to oppose any reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons and then going back on that point).
There is also clarity about the possibility of Obama turning to a much tougher stance on Israel after the congressional elections are over. Yet with a plummeting popularity at home and lots of domestic problems, perhaps Obama will have more on his mind than playing Middle East peacemaker.
The Palestinian Authority is so uneager for a peace agreement that anything said by Israel on the subject is most unlikely ever to be implemented. And it seems that the Obama Administration has at least some sense that it isn't going to get an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement so it doesn't want to look foolish in making this a high priority and then failing.
Thus, Israel’s strategy is as follows: try very hard to get along with the administration, seek to keep it happy, and avoid confrontation without making any major irreversible concessions or taking serious risks. Have no illusions, but keep the U.S. government focused on Iran as much as possible.
The next Congress will be more likely to constrain the president and who knows what will happen in future. A building freeze might be ended on strong grounds the next time. It is quite possible that Iran, Syria, and other radical forces will so assault the United States and trample on its interests that Obama will be forced to alter course. And there’s always the 2012 presidential election.
This, then, is the best policy for Israel to follow in comparison to more unattractive options. And for the foreseeable future, Obama will play along. It isn’t neat but it is real world international politics.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran; The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East; and The Truth About Syria. To see and subscribe to his blog go here; for GLORIA Center publications go here.
______________________________
Summary of Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the USA:
It was a PR blitz that went sour for Israel, again!
Though Netanyahu has a statesman appeal, he is eloquent and very relaxed when he speaks, and makes the best impression on all those who have built in their mind an image that Israelis are oppressive monsters, Bibi failed Israel. Now Israel will have to watch its back because Obama is a dangerous snake in the grass.
In his own words to Israel's Channel 2 Yonit Levy:
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.""Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said."I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West."
Obama is on a mission to fix his rating and his plan was to use Bibi's visit to do so.
Does Obama really believe that his middle name, Hussein, is a reason Israelis do not like him or suspect him? It is not! After all half of the Israeli-Arabs population middle name is Hussein! It is who he is reaching in the Moslem world that bothers Israelis, and most American too. Bush also reached to the Moslem world but not to terrorist regimes, despots and genocidal maniacs.
What bothers Israelis and Jews is his lack of sympathy to what Israel has to live through and what it is facing!Channel 2 reporter, Yonit Levy, missed an opportunity to speak for the entire state of Israel. She was intimidated (inexperienced in the international arena) by Hussein, and was scared to harness the opportunity to tell him, 'it is what you do to us, not your name that makes Israelis loath you.'Since Obama will go to any length to achieve his goal, he had not problem fabricating the story that his love for Jewish people propelled him to become a senator!
And he has the Jewish friends to prove it, even if we worry about his middle name?! Who is he kidding? Himself again?Though he used the old cliché about the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, didn't Obama show he is and acts the part of Israel's enemy? But, to my dismay, Obama sure got Netanyahu to roll over like a puppy, using him like a toy to shore up his rating. And rating went up!It is an agony to see this narcissist, self deluded, arrogant, man opening his mouth as the president of the USA...what a calamity! But, Netanyahu acted like a dope and worked hard to give Obama a policy victory...How awful!
Guest Comment: What an idiotic comment to make that he is disliked in Israel because his middle name is Hussein or because he has reached out to Muslims! This paints Israelis as intolerant biggots, buying into and even promoting anti-Semitism. Obama has chosen to inject prejudice and ethnicity into the Mid East conflict because he seeks to obfuscate his anti-Israeli policies. And this when his own Atty General refuses to take action against the New Black Pantheres who intimaded voters at the entrance to the voting area during our national elections.
Ask Obama, when was the last time he has made any demands on the Arabs--like stopping encitement, jihad, and teaching its children peace? Aggie
No comments:
Post a Comment